feat(decisions): remove bonus skills check from evaluation

- Removed checkBonusSkills AI tool from evaluation endpoint
- Removed BONUS node from decision tree config
- Updated edges to connect salary directly to strong/possible outcomes
- Removed all bonusCheck logic from useDecisionTree hook
- Removed BONUS from nodeToPreferenceMap
- Updated max score calculation (removed 5 bonus points)

The bonus skills check was redundant - required skills percentage already
captures skill match quality. Simpler decision tree with 7 criteria instead
of 8 makes evaluations clearer and faster.

Author: thomasdavis

apps/registry/app/[username]/decisions/config/decisionTree.js

@@ -142,12 +142,6 @@ const baseNodes = [
     style: nodeStyle(),
     type: 'default',
   },
-  {
-    id: NODE_IDS.BONUS,
-    data: { label: 'Bonus skill overlap?' },
-    style: nodeStyle(),
-    type: 'default',
-  },
   {
     id: NODE_IDS.STRONG,
     data: { label: '✅ Strong Match' },
@@ -241,18 +235,14 @@ const baseEdges = [
     'No (maybe later)'
   ),
 
-  // Salary → Bonus or Possible
-  createEdge('e_sal_bonus_yes', NODE_IDS.SAL, NODE_IDS.BONUS, 'Yes'),
+  // Salary → Strong or Possible
+  createEdge('e_sal_strong_yes', NODE_IDS.SAL, NODE_IDS.STRONG, 'Yes'),
   createEdge(
     'e_sal_possible_no',
     NODE_IDS.SAL,
     NODE_IDS.POSSIBLE,
     'No (negotiate?)'
   ),
-
-  // Bonus → Strong or Possible
-  createEdge('e_bonus_strong_yes', NODE_IDS.BONUS, NODE_IDS.STRONG, 'Yes'),
-  createEdge('e_bonus_possible_no', NODE_IDS.BONUS, NODE_IDS.POSSIBLE, 'No'),
 ];
 
 // Apply dagre layout to position nodes

apps/registry/app/[username]/decisions/hooks/useDecisionTree.js

@@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ const nodeToPreferenceMap = {
   [NODE_IDS.LOC]: 'location',
   [NODE_IDS.TZ]: 'timezone',
   [NODE_IDS.SAL]: 'salary',
-  [NODE_IDS.BONUS]: 'skills', // Bonus skills uses same preference as core skills
   // WR (work rights) and AVAIL (availability) always enabled
 };
 
@@ -230,7 +229,6 @@ export function useDecisionTree(resume, preferences = {}) {
       const timezoneCheck = decisions.checkTimezone;
       const availCheck = decisions.checkAvailability;
       const salaryCheck = decisions.checkSalary;
-      const bonusCheck = decisions.checkBonusSkills;
 
       // Build reasons array
       if (skillsCheck) reasons.push(['Required Skills', skillsCheck.reasoning]);
@@ -241,7 +239,6 @@ export function useDecisionTree(resume, preferences = {}) {
       if (timezoneCheck) reasons.push(['Timezone', timezoneCheck.reasoning]);
       if (availCheck) reasons.push(['Availability', availCheck.reasoning]);
       if (salaryCheck) reasons.push(['Salary', salaryCheck.reasoning]);
-      if (bonusCheck) reasons.push(['Bonus Skills', bonusCheck.reasoning]);
 
       // COLOR ALL NODES based on their results
       if (skillsCheck) {
@@ -276,10 +273,6 @@ export function useDecisionTree(resume, preferences = {}) {
         updateNodeColor(NODE_IDS.SAL, salaryCheck.salaryAligned);
         if (salaryCheck.salaryAligned) score += 5;
       }
-      if (bonusCheck) {
-        updateNodeColor(NODE_IDS.BONUS, bonusCheck.hasBonusSkills);
-        if (bonusCheck.hasBonusSkills) score += 5;
-      }
 
       // Determine outcome and where we fail on the path
       const matchPct = skillsCheck?.matchPercentage || 0;
@@ -310,9 +303,6 @@ export function useDecisionTree(resume, preferences = {}) {
       } else if (salaryCheck && !salaryCheck.salaryAligned) {
         finalOutcome = 'possibleMatch';
         failedAtNode = NODE_IDS.SAL;
-      } else if (bonusCheck && !bonusCheck.hasBonusSkills) {
-        finalOutcome = 'possibleMatch';
-        failedAtNode = NODE_IDS.BONUS;
       }
 
       // Now animate ONLY the actual path taken
@@ -498,27 +488,11 @@ export function useDecisionTree(resume, preferences = {}) {
                 // PASSED - continue
                 updateNodeColor(NODE_IDS.SAL, true);
                 score += 5;
-                highlightEdge('e_sal_bonus_yes', colors.paths.blue);
-
-                // Check 7: Bonus Skills
-                if (bonusCheck) {
-                  if (!bonusCheck.hasBonusSkills) {
-                    // FAILED - end as possible match
-                    updateNodeColor(NODE_IDS.BONUS, false);
-                    highlightEdge(
-                      'e_bonus_possible_no',
-                      colors.outcomes.possibleMatch.border
-                    );
-                  } else {
-                    // PASSED - strong match!
-                    updateNodeColor(NODE_IDS.BONUS, true);
-                    score += 5;
-                    highlightEdge(
-                      'e_bonus_strong_yes',
-                      colors.outcomes.strongMatch.border
-                    );
-                  }
-                }
+                // PASSED salary - strong match!
+                highlightEdge(
+                  'e_sal_strong_yes',
+                  colors.outcomes.strongMatch.border
+                );
               }
             }
           }

apps/registry/app/api/decisions/evaluate/route.js

@@ -116,20 +116,6 @@ const tools = {
       reasoning: z.string().describe('Brief explanation of the decision'),
     }),
   }),
-
-  checkBonusSkills: tool({
-    description:
-      'Check for nice-to-have skills that make the candidate stand out.',
-    inputSchema: z.object({
-      hasBonusSkills: z
-        .boolean()
-        .describe('True if candidate has significant bonus skills'),
-      matchedSkills: z
-        .array(z.string())
-        .describe('List of matched bonus skills'),
-      reasoning: z.string().describe('Brief explanation of the decision'),
-    }),
-  }),
 };
 
 export async function POST(request) {
@@ -248,11 +234,6 @@ Call ALL of these tools in order:
         ? `(User expects ${preferences.salary.value.min}-${preferences.salary.value.max})`
         : ''
     }
-8. checkBonusSkills - Does candidate have valuable bonus skills? ${
-      preferences.skills?.enabled === false
-        ? '(User disabled - be lenient)'
-        : ''
-    }
 
 Be thorough, honest, and realistic in your evaluation. Even if the candidate fails one check, continue evaluating all remaining criteria.`;